Talk:Doom (2016)

If it's a secret project, how do you know it exists? I mean, it sounds probable, but still... oTHErONE (Contribs) 09:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, disregard that. oTHErONE (Contribs) 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

doom 4 for x box
it would b cool if doom 4 was for the reagular xbox


 * Not really. Considering the fact that the old xbox couldn't possibly handle the Id Tech 5 engine.


 * But in case you really like a framerate of 1 you can give it a try when it is released.

wtf dude that would be terrible

"to earth"
"To earth" is used often as an expression, similiar in meaning to "come to light". Stop trying to join dots that aren't there. But still, it is likely it's a remake of doom II :)

Not a remake
Well, on wikipedia there is a clear statement that it is NOT a remake nor a sequel...which makes you wonder what the hell is it??? A whole new story arc sounds like the most plausible scenario in the light of this statement, be this new arc on Mars or Earth, though I do prefer Mars as a setting or any other planet/moon. That being said it's a pity no info will be coming out on Quakecon 2010...I hope they change their minds.


 * I think that Doom 4 will be a sequel to Final DOOM. BUt that's just me for ya..


 * Unlikely. Final Doom was not developed by Id Software.

New "old" info
Shacknews, Doom 4 - 1 Aug. 2008

I bet some of you have not read this, although it has 2 years since is there (but i see nothing bout this in the article)

"When asked whether the game will be rooted in the horror genre, Carmack indicated that it will instead focus more on pure action elements a la Doom 2." It will not be horror!

"Development of Doom 4 will be short, as very little of the id Tech 5 engine will be changed in the transition from Rage." It may release soon after Rage

Newsflash!
Looks like we are going to rip and tear all over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYjR5UzhcZA

Check out that door and the familiar noise. Full reveal's coming in this year's Quakecon. --ZeroTheEro (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Article name
It is pretty evident that ZeniMax intends to name the new game "DOOM" without any qualifiers, numbers, or subtitles, so eventually we'll have to rename this article. Once a release date is tenatively announced, I suggest we move the article to "Doom (201x)" with x being whatever the release date year turns out to be (.... &gt;_&gt;) and then make this a redirect. --Quasar (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am getting ready to update the article with information from the QuakeCon reveal and it seems pressing that the article be renamed soon. I'll go ahead with my content additions, but calling this article "Doom 4" at this point is really inappropriate I feel. Suggestions for an interim title would be appreciated. Maybe just literally "Doom (201x)" ? --Quasar (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It depends on how the community calls it. If Zenimax is going to just call it DOOM, I think the community will end up calling it Doom 4, but only time will say. --Kyano (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My opinion would be to leave it as Doom 4 until a release date is announced, then call it Doom (Year). Also what Kyano said, if people outside of id/Beth/Zen call it Doom 4, then we can keep calling it Doom 4. In any case, the title Doom should remain about what it currently is. --Gez (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd never suggest otherwise with respect to Doom, so that's not a part of this debate. I disagree with you guys. It may be OK to leave it as is for now, but in the long term, this article will be renamed to match the official name of the game, plus whatever is necessary to disambiguate it, because that is the only option in terms of our encyclopedic style. We don't call "Doom 3" the speculative "Doom 2000" title that people came up with on their own before the game was even officially announced and, as far back as you go, all the rumored logos for this project have only ever said "Doom". No four to be found. --Quasar (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not comparable. In this case there's a game called "Doom" already. There can't be two games with the same name, it makes no sense. If they release it as "Doom", for sure the community will call it something else, and that name will prevail. --Kyano (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Going to summarize my arguments one final time. I'm quite incredulous that I'm the only one on this side of the issue.
 * * Doom 4 has never been a canonical name for the project. It is comparable to Doom 2000 in that a good chunk of the community was once convinced that would be the name of the next entry in the series. They even had good reason in that case because id Software had registered Doom 2000 as a trademark and registered a domain name for it as well. Doom 4 has only ever been a conjectural working title and I challenge anyone to find a canonical primary source - from id, Bethesda, or ZeniMax - that ever referred to the game using that name.
 * * If we're going to start naming things what the fans decide rather than their official titles, I can make arguments for renaming Imp to Brown bastard, because hey, I like to call them that and they're referred to as such in the manual even, making it more canonical than "Doom 4" will ever be.
 * * Bethesda/ZeniMax have control over the trademark. Some people in the community don't like the fact they're just calling it Doom. Hey I don't even like it myself. But that is not our decision to make. If we persist in improper use of their trademarks, they could go as far to send us a cease and desist for diluting search results for the proper name of the product.
 * * Finally, the style of naming I suggested has wide precedents across the Internet and other media. Some good examples can particularly be found in the film industry, where reboots have become ubiquitous. The style "Title (Year)" is universal on sites such as IMDB. There is no good reason we should not follow suit that I can think of.
 * --Quasar (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As discussed on IRC, I would like to make it clear that the name of the article should be "Title (Year)" if Zenimax decides to just call it "Doom", even though I still think that if that's the case the community will still call it Doom 4. I hereby declare I have NOT been threatened to write this. *hand on bible* --Kyano (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Quasar, is that ok? Please no not the face


 * Haha. Yeah. I think we were more in agreement originally than was obvious from the conversation. As mentioned above and already discussed, I'm ok with holding off at least until an estimated release year appears. And of course, keeping Doom 4 as a redirect in any case is a no-brainer. It WAS referred to that by the press and many people for years, after all, regardless of what the official name turns out to be. --Quasar (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the general train-of-thought with everyone else, to hold off renaming the article until any definitive date is set. I would possibly even hold it off, beyond that, until it's actually released. Much of the present article will be a strong candidate for deletion or off-shoring into a "History of Doom (20XX)" article anyway, when there's an actual game to discuss. --Chungy (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not deletion I think, but there very well probably will be enough historical dev info by that point to warrant its own article, with only the briefest timeline left here. And yeah, I agree. We can at least wait til the release date is official, and if people really want to wait even longer than that, well, we'll see by then I guess ;) --Quasar (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't work ...
Continues flashing screen or blank screen ... a wasted effort! I will be returning the game, hopefully ID-Soft will get their act together but for me I'm no longer interested.


 * This is a discussion panel for the article contents, not a complaints or review board. Please use proper venues for that kind of thing. This website isn't owned by id Software, Bethesda Softworks, nor ZeniMax Media. It is an independent fan operated site. --Quasar (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2016 (CDT)

Reboot or sequel?
I don't have the game so I can't check this for myself, but from discussions on other places and the alternate release trailer, it seems the protagonist of Doom 2016 is meant to be the protagonist of Doom 1993. --Gez (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2016 (CDT)


 * As far as I can tell this is still open to interpretation. When Bethesda said story would be a secondary consideration they really weren't kidding, as the game nearly doesn't have one (a total of 2 or 3 cutscenes exist, so I've heard) if you do not go out of your way to find the codex entries or listen to the holograms that speak. I still have to get the game myself - none of my current rigs will run it so I've not bothered yet. The last official line from Bethesda that I knew of still used the word "reboot" so I've been sticking to that line.


 * My impression, however, from the easter eggs and from some of the codex tips, is that it is at the least heavily implied that all of the Doom series games take place in a multiverse or in a convoluted timeline (this is supported in particular by the UAC's concept of "pandimensionalism," ie., support of the idea of scientifically fusing together all dimensions, something that Hell has evidently spent its entire four ages also trying to accomplish and being repeatedly thwarted for the most part).


 * As far as the line in the launch trailer goes, you could easily take it at face value when Hayden says "you've returned," but the lore of the game, from what I've heard about it so far, ends up suggesting that you are an ancient warrior from a place called Argent D'Nur which was conquered and absorbed by Hell in the first age. This doesn't totally mesh with the idea that you are also the Doomguy from the first two games.


 * The problem here will be toeing the line between what I like to believe about the series and what the game actually firmly states, without introducing any non-encyclopedic speculation except where such is citable as a widespread critical interpretation. --Quasar (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2016 (CDT)